Sit/lie proposition polarizes San Francisco

Peter Barker, 24, left, Michael Cook, 23, and Aarron West, 22, sit on the sidewalk along Haight Street, Saturday May 22, 2010, in San Francisco, Calif. All three have been living on the street for less an one month and love it. " The sidewalks belong to the people," says Barker, when ask about the Mayors legislation banning people from sitting on the sidewalks. less

Peter Barker, 24, left, Michael Cook, 23, and Aarron West, 22, sit on the sidewalk along Haight Street, Saturday May 22, 2010, in San Francisco, Calif. All three have been living on the street for less an one ... more

Photo: Lacy Atkins, The Chronicle

Photo: Lacy Atkins, The Chronicle

Image
1of/3

Caption

Close

Image 1 of 3

Peter Barker, 24, left, Michael Cook, 23, and Aarron West, 22, sit on the sidewalk along Haight Street, Saturday May 22, 2010, in San Francisco, Calif. All three have been living on the street for less an one month and love it. " The sidewalks belong to the people," says Barker, when ask about the Mayors legislation banning people from sitting on the sidewalks. less

Peter Barker, 24, left, Michael Cook, 23, and Aarron West, 22, sit on the sidewalk along Haight Street, Saturday May 22, 2010, in San Francisco, Calif. All three have been living on the street for less an one ... more

Photo: Lacy Atkins, The Chronicle

Sit/lie proposition polarizes San Francisco

1 / 3

Back to Gallery

For Praveen Madan, co-owner of the Booksmith on Haight Street, the street kids who congregate in the famous neighborhood are merely an inconvenience. Occasionally, they block the entrance to his store or intimidate customers, but politely asking them to move on usually does the trick.

"It's a myth that's been propagated that there are gangs of thugs taking over our streets," Madan said. "Criminalizing them and putting them in jail hardly seems like the answer."

For Kent Uyehara, owner of FTC Skateboarding on the same block, the gangs of thugs are all too real. Just the other day, he was walking with his elderly mother and 10 intimidating youth with scary-looking dogs blocked the entire sidewalk and refused to move.

"Am I going to say something in that situation? Absolutely not," Uyehara said. "It's a fear of retaliation."

If two business owners on the same street can have two such diverging views of what's happening right outside their front doors, it's no wonder the city has been similarly polarized by Proposition L, the Nov. 2 ballot measure that would ban sitting or lying on public sidewalks throughout San Francisco between 7 a.m. and 11 p.m.

Police would have to warn offenders to move on before handing them a citation that could come with penalties of a $500 fine and 30 days in jail for repeat offenders.

The ban was encouraged by Mayor Gavin Newsom and Police Chief George Gascón last year after reports of thugs intimidating residents and shoppers along Haight Street, but the Board of Supervisors voted it down, and the mayor handed it to the voters.

Plenty of laws exist to deal with intimidating street behavior, and police do hand out citations for blocking the sidewalk, urinating on the street or drinking in public. But nothing usually happens to those who get the citations, and police say having the authority to warn those sitting or lying on sidewalks to move along would make a difference.

Opponents say adding one more law to the books to criminalize the homeless is unfair, especially because police have other laws at their disposal.

The Yes on L side has raised $194,000 including $35,000 from angel investor Ron Conway; $25,000 from discount stock brokerage magnate Charles Schwab; $15,000 from philanthropist Dede Wilsey; and $10,000 from 49ers president Jed York. The No on L side has raised $6,510.

Just one measure down the ballot is Proposition M, which has gotten far less attention and has no money raised for either side. Written by Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi, who represents the Haight, it would mandate that the Police Department adopt a foot-patrol program for all of its stations citywide.

But within the measure is a so-called "poison pill," added by Board President David Chiu as payback for Newsom's own "poison pill" in an unrelated measure. Prop. M states that if it passes with more votes than Prop. L, the latter is defeated. If both pass, but the sit/lie measure gets more votes, both go into effect.

Controller Ben Rosenfield said foot patrols would cost $4.45 million a year. Newsom and Gascón oppose Prop. M, saying that foot patrols are already happening and that it's really just a deceptive way to try to kill the sit/lie law. Supporters, including the majority of the board and the city's Democratic Party, say foot patrols would clean up the Haight and other neighborhoods far better than a sit/lie ban.

"How does sit/lie work if there are no street patrols?" asked Calvin Welch of the Haight Ashbury Neighborhood Council, who said the real problem behavior takes place in Golden Gate and Buena Vista parks. Cops on foot could easily walk into the parks, whereas the sit/lie ban would not apply to parks.